24 results for ""Recollection+and+Selfhood+in+Mediated+Environments"+"journal""

in 6.79 milliseconds.

• Genome-Wide Association Study of Hypertriglyceridemia in Mexicans

  Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the number one cause of death and mortality world-wide. High levels of serum triglycerides (TGs) and low levels of serum high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) are major risk factors for CAD. Previous epidemiological studies have shown that these two lipid disturbances are highly common dyslipidemias in Mexicans. However, the genetic factors underlying high serum TGs and low HDL-C are underinvestigated and poorly identified in Mexicans. As the Mexican-American and the genetically related Latin-American populations represent the fastest growing minority in the United States, elucidation of the unknown genetic factors influencing the increased susceptibility of Mexicans to these common dyslipidemias is of great relevance to these U.S. minorities and the American healthcare system. This study is a research collaboration between investigators at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición (INCMN), Mexico City, to perform a two-stage genome-wide association study (GWAS) for hypertriglyceridemia and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) in Mexicans (Weissglas-Volkov et al. 2013, PMID: 23505323). This study was funded by an RO1 grant from NIH/NHLBI (PI Paivi Pajukanta; PI of the subaward Teresa Tusie-Luna). In stage 1 of the GWAS, we tested all GWAS SNPs from the Illumina Infinium Human610-Quad platform that passed quality control for association in ~2,200 hypertriglyceridemia cases and controls. In stage 2, we genotyped the ~1,200 positive signals of stage 1 in additional ~2,200 hypertriglyceridemia cases and controls, and performed a combined analysis of the two stages to identify genome-wide significant variants. The subjects were recruited at the INCMN. The DNA isolation and clinical laboratory measurements of the case-control study samples were performed at INCMN using standardized procedures. Genotyping and statistical analyses of the data were performed at UCLA. A summary of this GWAS can be found in Weissglas-Volkov et al. 2013 Journal of Medical Genetics, PMID: 23505323. Briefly, using the two-stage GWAS design, we identified a novel Mexican-specific genome-wide significant locus for serum TG levels close to the Niemann-Pick type C1 protein (NPC1) gene (Weissglas-Volkov et al. 2013, PMID: 23505323). Of the European lipid GWAS loci, three TG loci (APOA5, GCKR, and LPL) and four HDL-C loci (ABCA1, CETP, LIPC and LOC55908) resulted in genome-wide significant signals in Mexicans. Furthermore, our cross-ethnic mapping narrowed three European TG GWAS loci, APOA5, MLXIPL, and CILP2 that exhibited long range LD and a large number of candidate SNPs in the European GWAS scan. In the apolipoprotein A1C3A4A5 gene cluster region, the cross-ethnic fine mapping and LD comparisons reduced the number of candidate variants to one SNP, rs964184. We also found that although 52% of the associations from European lipid GWAS meta-analysis could be generalized to Mexicans, in 82% of the European GWAS loci, a different variant other than the European lead SNP provided the statistically strongest evidence of association in the Mexican scan (Weissglas-Volkov et al. 2013, PMID: 23505323). Taken together, our Mexican GWAS for lipids identified a novel Mexican-specific locus for high serum TGs; restricted three European GWAS loci; and investigated which European lipid GWAS variants extend to the Mexican population (Weissglas-Volkov et al. 2013, PMID: 23505323). This NHLBI sponsored RO1 project aimed to identify genetic variants contributing to serum lipid levels in Mexicans. In addition to de-identified genome wide genotypic data, a selected list of de-identified phenotypic data related to hypertriglyceridemia and related metabolic traits are also available in dbGaP.

  Study phs000618

• Highlights from 2025: Our top 10 requested studies

  In 2025, as in previous years, EGA has facilitated the reuse of numerous datasets spanning a broad range of research and healthcare topics. To reflect on this activity, we would like to highlight the top 10 studies behind the most requested datasets of last year. Notably, the vast majority of these highly requested datasets are cancer-focused, particularly involving the study of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become one of the most transformative advances in modern cancer therapy. These monoclonal antibodies enhance antitumor immune responses by targeting inhibitory immune checkpoint molecules. While ICIs have led to remarkably favorable and durable responses in some patients, treatment outcomes vary widely. This variability has fueled intense research efforts aimed at understanding resistance mechanisms, exploring combination therapies, and discovering predictive biomarkers to better stratify patients and guide treatment decisions. Study Title Disease 1 EGAS00001005503 Integrated genomic analyses reveal molecular correlates of clinical response and resistance to atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma Liver Cancer 2 EGAS00001005013 Intratumoral plasma cells predict outcomes to PD-L1 blockade in non-small cell lung cancer Lung Cancer 3 EGAS00001004809 BIOKEY: A single-cell catalogue of the dynamic changes underlying Checkpoint Immunotherapy response in Early Breast Cancer Breast Cancer 4 EGAS50000000138 BIOKEY: Immune heterogeneity in small cell lung cancer and vulnerability to immune checkpoint blockade Lung Cancer 5 EGAS50000000497 Bladder cancer subtyping study across 4 atezo clinical trials Bladder Cancer 6 EGAS50000000689 MOSAIC - Multi-Omics Spatial Atlas In Cancer Cancer Atlas 7 EGAS00000000083 METABRIC (Breast cancer - genome and transcriptome) Breast Cancer 8 EGAS00001005702 Human genomic and phenotypic synthetic data for the study of rare diseases Synthetic data 9 EGAS00001002556 TGF-β attenuates tumour response to PD-L1 blockade by contributing to exclusion of T cells Bladder Cancer 10 EGAS00001004353 Molecular subsets in renal cancer determine outcome to checkpoint and angiogenesis blockade Renal Cancer The most requested dataset of the year was EGAD00001008128. It belongs to a study that analyzed 358 liver cancer patients enrolled in clinical trials and treated with the combination of atezolizumab (anti–PD-L1) and bevacizumab (anti-VEGF), atezolizumab alone, or sorafenib. The study highlights how bevacizumab enhances anti-PD-L1 effect and identifies candidate biomarkers to predict treatment response. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common type of primary liver cancer and the third leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide [1]. Because symptoms often appear late, many patients are diagnosed at advanced stages, when curative options are no longer viable. For many years, sorafenib—a multikinase inhibitor approved in 2007—was the only systemic treatment available. Although numerous clinical trials followed, it was not until a decade later that additional therapies showed meaningful clinical benefit. Among these advances, immunotherapy emerged as a promising first-line option [2]. In particular, the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab demonstrated improved survival in patients with advanced HCC, reshaping the treatment landscape. However, treatment efficacy remains limited by the complex and diverse hepatic microenvironments that influence immune responses, as well as by high intratumoral heterogeneity. Identifying robust predictors of treatment response is critical to enable effective patient stratification and maximize the benefits of these therapies [2]. The continued demand for these datasets highlights the interest and critical role of data reuse in deepening our understanding of cancer, accelerating the development of more effective therapies, and improving patient outcomes. By providing secure access to high-quality genomic and clinical data, EGA acts as a catalyst for biomedical progress. References Sung, Hyuna, et al. "Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries."CA: a cancer journal for clinicians 71.3 (2021): 209-249. Ladd, Alexandra D, et al.“Mechanisms of drug resistance in HCC.” Hepatology 79(4) (2024): 926-940

  Blog top-10-studies-2025

• From research to data sharing: exploring EGA user's experiences

  The Cell Plasticity and Regeneration Group at the Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute-IDIBELL focuses on the process of recruitment of macrophages that takes place in the small intestine during injury and healing. They recently published a paper titled “Mucosal Macrophages Govern Intestinal Regeneration in Response to Injury" in Gastroenterology Journal. As part of the research, some experiments were conducted using human intestinal organoid lines. These cells were processed for RNA sequencing, and the sequencing data were deposited at the EGA to be made available to the scientific community. When dealing with human genomic information, repositories must ensure the availability of the datasets while ensuring data protection. In this context, the European Genome-phenome Archive stands as a service for secure archiving and sharing of genetic, phenotypic and clinical data resulting from biomedical research. Following the recent publication of their paper, we took the opportunity to talk to Ilias Moraitis, first author, and Jordi Guiu, group leader, to find out about their experience with data sharing. Could you explain the focus of your research? In the lab, we study intestinal regeneration and how immune cells participate in this process. We use several techniques: engineered mouse models, image tracing, as well as mouse and human cells intestinal organoids. What challenges do you face regarding data management? We didn’t have a lot of problems. Always the informatic part, the data analysis, can give problems. But everything was smooth and working. We think it’s very important to deposit the data in repositories. For the mouse data it is very straightforward, but for us it was the first time depositing human data, which is sensitive because it comes from patients, and this is legally regulated. That’s why we thought about the EGA, and it was our first time. Why do you think it is important to submit data to repositories such as EGA? Because we think data is important for the science. Nowadays, we are sequencing a lot everywhere worldwide and having these resources shared with the scientific community it’s not only good for science, but it is also saving money and reducing costs. And there is so much data in there that can be used for other projects and for other questions. And it saves time! How was the process of submitting the data to the EGA? The communication worked very well but it was slower than we would like. But I think this is something we learn on the way. People usually wait until the last minute to do this before publication but if you know it in advance, you can start the process earlier. If you had to repeat the process, would you do anything differently? It’s like everything, isn’t it? For the first time you don’t know, you aren’t sure, but for the second time you know the steps, you know what to do and it’s faster. Of course, we would to do it earlier. Also, there were some things related to the control access that we didn’t know how to manage, but it was something more internal to us. Who is going to receive the communications and when, is our ethical committee going to evaluate this? All these technicalities that we didn’t know before starting this process, so we had to think about all these things. Next time it will be faster on our side. Do you have any suggestions for us to improve the submission process? Maybe we’ll need to ask our bioinformatician who did it! He was in charge of this part. Besides that, we think if the process were faster, it would be better for everyone. Also, in science a lot of times you have to do a lot of things at the very last minute, because of the nature of the experiments, or the need to accomplish for submitting a paper. Being faster in the process would be a plus. On your side, we went through the process and were able to find some information, but there were aspects we weren't aware of and weren't sure how to handle. I'm not sure if other institutes have different protocols for managing data requests or how they handle these internally. We believe the main issue lies in how the forms are filled out. Do you have any recommendations for other submitters? The main advice is to do this with enough time. Submit the data when you have the sequences, and don’t wait until the last minute. And then it can be under embargo, so you don’t need to make it public at that moment. As soon as you sequence, upload it and then it will be there for whenever you need to publish. How do you think we could encourage other researchers to submit their data? There are different layers here. One is that it is mandatory. You have to do this. The other is that we belong to a research community, to the same community and sharing this is making our research community stronger and more efficient. And then, also because this gives you visibility. The data is there, other people can analyse your data, and this also will bring citations to your papers. It has many advantages.

  Blog from-research-to-data-sharing

• Pharmacogenomics Research Network Antidepressant Medication Pharmacogenomic Study (PGRN-AMPS)

  This pharmacogenomic study focused on the response of patients with MDD to an 8-week course of treatment with citalopram or escitalopram. Briefly, clinical assessments and research assessments were performed at each study visit as summarized in Table 1. Many patients continued on antidepressant medication after the 8 week study. Table 1: Study timeline and patient contacts. Week Consent/Med Hx Write Rx SI Qx SCID HRS-D17 QIDSC16 CGI-I 0 SC RC RC SC SC SC 4 RC RC SC SC RC 8 RC RC SC SC RC HRS-D17=Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, QIDS-C16=Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, CGI-I=Clinical Global Impression-Improvement, SCID=Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV, SC=Study Coordinator, RC=Research Clinician. Enrollment and baseline assessment. Upon initial intake, the Study Coordinator (SC) obtained informed consent as well as clinical and demographic information, including history of bone marrow or liver transplant or blood transfusion within the previous 6 weeks, and prior history of treatment during the current major depressive episode. The SC completed the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID), the HRS-D17 (17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression) and the QIDS-C16 (Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology) and reviewed the inclusion/exclusion criteria. After review with the Research Clinician (RC) and when appropriate, after a negative pregnancy test, the SC invited the subject to participate in the study if entry criteria were met. If the subject agreed, he/she received treatment according to the study protocol. Treatment schedule. Participants selected for inclusion in the study were seen at weeks 0, 4, and 8. The appropriate treatment antidepressant (citalopram or escitalopram) was determined following discussion between the patient and RC concerning medical, financial, and insurance considerations. The study medication citalopram was given in tablet or liquid form, depending on the patient's need. A fixed-flexible dose schedule was employed with the possibility of a dose escalation. In particular, the initial dose of citalopram was 20 mg and escitalopram was 10 mg. This dose was increased to 40 mg and 20 mg, respectively, after 4 weeks if the subject had a score of >/= 6 on the QIDS-C16 and the RC concluded that the subject could tolerate the increase. If necessary, dose was reduced at the discretion of the RC. The importance of medication compliance was discussed with the subject, and subjects were asked to bring in the medication at each visit for the purpose of counting remaining pills to assess compliance. Participants may have had an abbreviated course of therapy if they were clearly intolerant of the drug or failed to respond to a 40 mg dose of citalopram or a 20 mg dose of escitalopram. They then received standard treatment from a primary physician or psychiatrist with different medications and/or therapeutic modalities (e.g. psychotherapy). Special attention was given to subjects with suicidal ideation. Those subjects were offered additional appointments as needed to ensure their safety. Participants were also contacted by telephone at week 1 and week 2 by the Clinical Nurse Specialist (CNS) or other study personnel to ensure medication compliance and patient safety. The CNS was supervised by the study psychiatrist and principal investigator and deferred to the physician's judgment as needed. The SC was trained to notify the RC at the time of the clinical visits or the phone interviews if the subject endorsed any suicidal ideation or plans. For those subjects who were unable to attend the follow-up visits as scheduled, the patient was contacted by phone to complete the HRS-D17/QIDS-C16. The participant was also asked to return to the clinic to complete a final blood draw for the study. Adjunctive and concurrent medications. Adjunctive treatments were those used to manage transient associated symptoms (e.g., insomnia) or transient or longer-term medication side effects (e.g., sexual dysfunction). Adjunctive treatments that were not used to treat depression were allowed during the study. However, drugs in the exclusion criteria for this study were not used as adjunctive therapies. Subjects were allowed to participate in the study while receiving concurrent medications for general medical conditions as long as there was no contraindication to use while taking citalopram or escitalopram. Drug efficacy phenotype evaluation. The change in QIDS-C16 score and change in HRS-D17 score were used as the major research outcome measures to assess drug response. At each clinical research visit, the RC also completed the Clinician Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I) scale. For the primary genome-wide association analyses, dichotomous outcome variables, remission and response, were defined based on the QIDS-C16 last visit score. Remission was defined as a QIDS-C16 score of 5 or less, while response was defined as at least a 50% reduction in the QIDS-C16 score from baseline. Specimen collection. Specimen collections were obtained by the General Clinical Research Center (GCRC) at St. Mary's Hospital (SMH). Subjects had blood drawn on an outpatient basis at GCRC-SMH on three separate occasions - baseline (0), week 4 and week 8 visits. Prior to sample collection, date and time of last dose of study medication was gathered at the 4 and 8 week visits. For those patients who were unable to complete the regularly scheduled visits, a dismissal blood draw was requested. GCRC then shipped samples to Mayo Clinic's Biospecimens Accessioning and Processing Lab. Genotyping and biomarker assays. DNA from 529 patients was genotyped by the RIKEN Center for Genomic Medicine (Yokohama, Japan) using Illumina Human610-Quad BeadChips (Illumina, San Diego, CA). The study also included the determination of plasma drug levels at weeks 4 and 8, and metabolite levels at baseline and weeks 4 and 8 for a subset of subjects. The primary genome-wide association study based on these data, which includes a summary of the protocol, subject description, selection of subjects for genetic analyses, and definitions of clinical outcomes, was published in the Pharmacogenomics Journal (Ji et al., 2012).

  Study phs000670